Comparison between propofol and total inhalational anaesthesia on cardiovascular outcomes following on-pump cardiac surgery in higher-risk patients: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: Myocardial revascularisation and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can cause ischaemia-reperfusion injury, leading to myocardial and other end-organ damage. Volatile anaesthetics protect the myocardium in experimental studies. However, there is uncertainty about whether this translates into clinical benefits because of the coadministration of propofol and its detrimental effects, restricting myocardial protective processes. METHODS: In this single-blinded, parallel-group randomised controlled feasibility trial, higher-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with an additive European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation ≥5 were randomised to receive either propofol or total inhalational anaesthesia as single agents for maintenance of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting and randomising 50 patients across two cardiac surgical centres, and secondary outcomes included the feasibility of collecting the planned perioperative data, clinically relevant outcomes and assessments of effective patient identification, screening and recruitment. RESULTS: All 50 patients were recruited within 11 months in two centres, allowing for a 13-month hiatus in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 50/108 (46%) of eligible patients were recruited. One patient withdrew before surgery and one patient did not undergo surgery. All but one completed in-hospital and 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and randomise higher-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery to a study comparing total inhalational and propofol anaesthesia in a timely manner and with high acceptance and completion rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04039854.

Comparison of the genotoxicity of propofol and desflurane using the comet assay in the lymphocytes of patients who underwent lumbar discectomy: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the genotoxic effects of desflurane and propofol using comet assay in patients undergoing elective discectomy surgery. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled study. Patients who underwent elective lumbar discectomy under general anesthesia with propofol or desflurane were included in the study. Venous blood samples were obtained at 4 different time points: 5 minutes before anesthesia induction (T1), 2 hours after the start of anesthesia (T2), the first day after surgery (T3), and the fifth day following surgery (T4). Deoxyribonucleic acid damage in lymphocytes was assessed via the comet assay. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients, 15 in each group, were included in the analysis. The groups were similar in terms of age and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in demographics, duration of surgery, total remifentanil consumption, and total rocuronium bromide consumption. The comet assay revealed that head length, head intensity, tail intensity, tail moment at T1 were similar in the desflurane and propofol groups. Head length, tail length and tail moment measured in the desflurane group at T4 were significantly higher compared to the propofol group. Tail lengths of the desflurane group at T1, T2 and T3 were significantly higher than the corresponding values in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: Propofol and desflurane do not appear to induce DNA damage in lymphocytes. However, when the quantitative data were compared, it was determined that propofol had relatively lower genotoxic potential than desflurane.ClinicalTrials.gov Reg. No.: NCT05185167.

Perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by propofol.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare and the diagnosis is difficult to distinguish from normal side effects from anaesthesia. Anaesthetists should be able to diagnose anaphylaxis and treat promptly with adrenaline and fluids. Allergy investigation should be performed subsequently. This is a case report of perioperative anaphylaxis to propofol. Propofol contains refined soya oil and egg lecithin, but no connection between allergy to soy, egg or peanut and allergy to propofol has been proven, and international guidelines recommend that propofol can be used in patients with these food allergies.

50% efficacy dose of intravenous lidocaine in supressing sufentanil-induced cough in children: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids such as sufentanil are used as anaesthetics due to their rapid action and superior analgesic effect. However, sufentanil induces a huge cough in paediatric patients. In contrast, intravenous (IV) lidocaine suppresses opioid-induced cough in children, but its use is limited due to anaesthetists' concern about its toxicity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of dose-dependent IV lidocaine on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in paediatric patients. METHODS: A total of 188 patients aged 3-12 years scheduled for elective tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups depending on different dose of lidocaine: A (0 mg.kg-1), B (1 mg.kg-1), C (1.5 mg.kg-1), and D (2 mg.kg-1). The primary outcome was the SIC grade observed during the induction of general anaesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of SIC, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. RESULTS: The SIC grade was significantly different between groups A and D (P = 0.04) and between groups B and D (P = 0.03). Moreover, the incidence of SIC in groups A, B, C, and D was 81%, 87%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, and the difference between groups B and C (P = 0.03) and between groups B and D (P = 0.0083) was statistically significant. No statistical differences were observed in the hemodynamic parameters between the groups. The incidence of severe cough was statistically different between group D and group A (P < 0.0001), between group D and group B (P < 0.0001), and between group D and group C (P < 0.0001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine suppresses SIC in a dose-dependent manner without severe adverse events. IV lidocaine can be used in paediatric patients safely and efficiently, and the median effective dose was 1.75 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yichang Central People's Hospital (HEC-KYJJ-2020-038-02), The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100053006).

Dexmedetomidine Pretreatment Confers Myocardial Protection and Reduces Mechanical Ventilation Duration for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Valve Replacement under Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) pretreatment on patients during cardiac valve replacement under cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: For patients in the Dex group (n = 52), 0.5 µg/kg Dex was given before anesthesia induction, followed by 0.5 µg/kg/h pumping injection before aortic occlusion. For patients in the control group (n = 52), 0.125 ml/kg normal saline was given instead of Dex. RESULTS: The patients in the Dex group had longer time to first dose of rescue propofol than the control group (P = 0.003). The Dex group required less total dosage of propofol than the control group (P = 0.0001). The levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase isoenzyme MB (CK-MB), malondialdehyde (MDA), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were lower in the Dex group than the control group at T4, 8 h after the operation (T5), and 24 h after the operation (T6) (P <0.01). The Dex group required less time for mechanical ventilation than the control group (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that 0.50 µg/kg Dex pretreatment could reduce propofol use and the duration of mechanical ventilation, and confer myocardial protection without increased adverse events during cardiac valve replacement.

The efficacy and safety of ciprofol and propofol in patients undergoing colonoscopy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Propofol is a commonly utilized anesthetic for painless colonoscopy, but its usage is occasionally limited due to its potential side effects, including cardiopulmonary suppression and injection pain. To address this limitation, the novel compound ciprofol has been proposed as a possible alternative for propofol. This study sought to determine whether there are any differences in the safety and efficacy of propofol and ciprofol for painless colonoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Single-centre, class A tertiary hospital, November 2021 to November 2022. PATIENTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to II and body mass index of 18 to 30 kg m-2 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Consecutive patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive sedation for colonoscopy with ciprofol (group C) or propofol (group P). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate of colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were onset time of sedation, operation time, recovery time and discharge time, patients and endoscopists satisfaction, side effects (e.g. injection pain, myoclonus, drowsiness, dizziness, procedure recall, nausea and vomiting) and incidence rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the success rate of colonoscopy between the two groups (ciprofol 96.3% vs. propofol 97.6%; mean difference - 1.2%, 95% CI: -6.5% to 4.0%, P = 0.650). However, group C showed prolonged sedation (63.4 vs. 54.8 s, P < 0.001) and fully alert times (9 vs 8 min, P = 0.013), as well as reduced incidences of injection pain (0 vs. 40.2%, P < 0.001), respiratory depression (2.4% vs. 13.4%, P = 0.021) and hypotension (65.9% vs. 80.5%, P = 0.034). Patients satisfaction was also higher in Group C (10 vs 9, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can be used independently for colonoscopy. When comparing the sedation efficacy of ciprofol and propofol, a 0.4 mg kg-1 dose of ciprofol proved to be equal to a 2.0 mg kg-1 dose of propofol, with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction during the procedure.

Effect of Remimazolam- versus Propofol-Based Total Intravenous General Anesthesia on Intraoperative Hemodynamic Stability for Major Spine Surgery in the Prone Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Remimazolam offers advantages over propofol in terms of hemodynamic stability. However, it remains unclear whether remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) can reduce intraoperative hypotension compared to propofol-based TIVA, especially after prone positioning. In this study, we compared the effects of remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA on intraoperative hemodynamic stability in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Materials and Methods: This study randomly assigned patients undergoing major spinal surgery in the prone position to the propofol or remimazolam group. Target-controlled infusion (2-3.5 µg/mL for induction and 2-3 µg/mL for maintenance) was used in the propofol group and continuous infusion (6 mg/kg/h for induction and 1-2 mg/kg/h for maintenance) was used in the remimazolam group; target-controlled infusion (3-5 ng/mL) of remifentanil was performed in both groups. The primary outcomes were the incidence of hypotensive episodes during the first hour after prone positioning. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe hypotension and the total amount of inotropic or vasopressor medication. Systolic and mean arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac index and output, stroke volume, stroke volume variation, and pleth variability index were also evaluated. These variables were recorded per minute for the first 10 min after prone positioning, and every 10 min thereafter. Results: The study enrolled 94 patients (47 patients in each group). The incidence of hypotension or severe hypotension did not differ significantly between the two groups during the first hour after prone positioning. The total amount of ephedrine administered during the first hour after prone positioning was lesser (p = 0.020) and the mean arterial pressure during the initial 10 min after prone positioning was higher in the remimazolam group (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Our study uncovered no significant differences in the incidence of hypotension between remimazolam- and propofol-based TIVA in patients undergoing major spine surgery in prone position.

Adverse Drug Events Observed with the Newly Approved Remimazolam in Comparison to Propofol for General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Developments in anesthetic pharmacology have been aiming at minimizing physiological disturbance in addition to maintaining and improving titrateability, recovery profile, and patient experience. Remimazolam, a GABAAlpha receptor agonist, is a new intravenous anesthetic agent which has recently been approved for use. This analysis aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events reported with the newly approved remimazolam in comparison to propofol for general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from 15 May to 20 December 2023 for relevant publications which compared the outcomes reported with the newly approved remimazolam versus propofol in patients undergoing surgery. Relevant reported adverse drug events were the endpoints of this study. The statistical analysis was carried out using the latest version of the RevMan software. Data analysis was represented by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total number of 1897 participants were included in this analysis; 1104 participants received remimazolam and 793 participants received propofol. The risks for hypotension (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58; P = 0.00001), hypoxemia (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.99; P = 0.05), bradycardia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P = 0.001), pain at injection site (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.56; P = 0.01), and total adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P = 0.00001) were significantly lower with remimazolam. However, no significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66-1.46; P = 0.93), dizziness (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.57; P = 0.20), psychiatric symptoms (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45-2.67; P = 0.85), and respiratory depression (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.24-2.76; P = 0.74). CONCLUSION: Our current analysis showed that the newly approved remimazolam was apparently associated with significantly fewer adverse drug events in comparison to propofol for GA in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, this new drug should be further studied and more research with larger population sizes should be carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

Anaesthesia and brain development: a review of propofol-induced neurotoxicity in pediatric populations.

With the advancement of medical technology, there are increasing opportunities for new-borns, infants, and pregnant women to be exposed to general anaesthesia. Propofol is commonly used for the induction of anaesthesia, maintenance of general intravenous anaesthesia and sedation of intensive-care children. Many previous studies have found that propofol has organ-protective effects, but growing evidence suggests that propofol interferes with brain development, affecting learning and cognitive function. The purpose of this review is to summarize the latest progress in understanding the neurotoxicity of propofol. Evidence from case studies and clinical studies suggests that propofol has neurotoxicity on the developing brain. We classify the findings on propofol-induced neurotoxicity based on its damage mechanism. We end by summarizing the current protective strategies against propofol neurotoxicity. Fully understanding the neurotoxic mechanisms of propofol can help us use it at a reasonable dosage, reduce its side effects, and increase patient safety.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.

The Relationship between Pre-Anesthetic Analgesia and Nociception (ANI) and Propofol Injection Pain among Patients Receiving Remifentanil: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Background and Objectives: The analgesia/nociception index (ANI) potentially monitors nociceptive status during anesthesia, but its link to preoperative pain sensitivity is unclear. We investigated the relationship between pre-anesthetic ANI scores and propofol injection pain (PIP) in patients receiving remifentanil. Materials and Methods: This study included 124 male patients aged 19-60 undergoing general anesthesia (ASA class I or II). Patients were randomized to group R (n = 62, remifentanil 4 ng/mL) or group C (n = 62, saline). The primary outcome was the association between PIP and ANI. Secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of PIP or rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement (RIWM) and their association with ANI. Results: PIP and RIWM incidence and severity were lower in group R than in group C. A weak negative correlation between PIP and ANI at pre-induction (rpb = -0.21, p = 0.02, rpb = -0.37, p < 0.01) and a moderate negative correlation during propofol injection (rpb = -0.48, p = 0.02) were observed. A significant negative correlation was found between RIWM and ANI during rocuronium injection (τb = -0.61, p < 0.01). AUC, cut-off value, specificity, and sensitivity in ANI at pre-induction for predicting PIP were 0.67 (p = 0.02), 59, 76%, and 55%, respectively. AUC, cut-off value, specificity, and sensitivity in ANI during propofol injection for PIP were 0.77 (p < 0.01), 65, 81%, and 67%, respectively. Conclusions: ANI scores demonstrated significant differences between groups, suggesting potential predictive value for PIP despite the low pre-induction AUC value. This study highlights the potential of using ANI scores to predict and manage PIP in patients receiving remifentanil.

Randomized, Single-Blind, Comparative Study of Remimazolam Besylate vs Propofol for Facial Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Use of local anesthesia and conscious sedation with a combination of a sedative and anesthetic drug during a surgical procedure is an approach designed to avoid intubation, which produces fewer adverse events compared to general anesthesia. In the present study, a comparison was made between the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate and propofol for facial plastic surgery. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the clinical efficacy, comfort, and incidence of adverse events of remimazolam compared with propofol combined with alfentanil in outpatient facial plastic surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, single-center, comparative study, facial plastic surgery patients were randomly divided into remimazolam-alfentanil (n = 50) and propofol-alfentanil (n = 50) groups for sedation and analgesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxemia, while secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety evaluations. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding the surgical procedure, sedation and induction times, pain and comfort scores, muscle strength recovery, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, but the dosage of alfentanil administered to the remimazolam group (387.5 µg) was lower than that for the propofol group (600 µg). The incidence of hypoxemia (P = .046) and towing of the mandibular (P = .028), as well as wake-up (P = .027) and injection pain (P = .008), were significantly higher in the propofol group than the remimazolam group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam and propofol had similar efficacies for sedation and analgesia during facial plastic surgery, but especially the incidence of respiratory depression was significantly lower in patients given remimazolam.

Remifentanil is Superior to Propofol for Treating Emergence Agitation in Adults After General Anesthesia.

Background: Emergence agitation (EA) is one of the most common complications in clinical general anesthesia during recovery in adults. Remifentanil and propofol can reduce the incidence of EA, but with no randomized controlled trial to evaluate their effectiveness for treating EA. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of remifentanil and propofol for treating EA following general anesthesia. Patients and methods: Among 152 randomized patients with a mean of 49.5 years, and 99 (65.1%) of them being male, 149 were divided into two groups for subsequent analysis. The remifentanil group (Group R, n = 74) received a 0.5µg kg-1 remifentanil infusion followed by a 0.05µg kg-1 min-1 infusion until 15 minutes, after the onset of agitation. The propofol group (Group P, n = 75) received a 1mg kg-1 propofol infusion once agitation occurred. Emergence agitation was assessed using the Riker Sedation Agitation Score, with a score of ≥5 defining emergence agitation. During the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), the recurrence of emergence agitation, time to extubation, and discharge from PACU were evaluated. Results: The incidence of reoccurring emergence agitation was lower in Group R (29.7%) compared with Group P (49.3%), with an odds ratio of 0.44 (95% CI 0.22-0.85; P=0.014). The time to extubation was shorter in Group R (mean 12min, range 8-15 min) compared with Group P (mean 17min, range 13-21 min) (P<0.001), as was the time discharge from the PACU (mean 30.5 min, range 25-40 min) vs Group P (mean 37.5 min, range 31-50 min) (P=0.001). Conclusion: Treatment of emergence agitation in adults with remifentanil infusion is more effective than propofol, with a shorter time to extubation and discharge from PACU.

Efficacy of remimazolam tosilate versus propofol for total intravenous anaesthesia in urological surgery: A randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is a novel ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine sedative that acts on the gamma-aminobutyric acid type A receptor (GABAAR). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacies of remimazolam (RMZ), and propofol (PROP) combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in patients undergoing urological surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, randomised, noninferiority clinical trial. SETTING: Single centre from 1 January 2022 to 30 March 2022. PATIENTS: A total of 146 adult patients undergoing elective urological surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to the PROP or RMZ groups. In the PROP group, anaesthesia was induced with propofol at 100 mg min -1 to reach a bispectral index score (BIS) of 40 to 60. After loss of consciousness (LOC), intravenous fentanyl 3 µg kg -1 was administered, followed by cisatracurium 0.3 mg kg -1 . Patients were intubated 3 min after cisatracurium administration. Anaesthesia was maintained with the combination of propofol (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 µg ml -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). In the RMZ group, anaesthesia was induced with remimazolam tosilate starting at 10 mg kg -1  h -1 to reach a BIS of 40 to 60 and maintained between 0.2 and 2 mg kg -1  h -1 . After LOC, fentanyl and cisatracurium were administered and intubation was performed as in the PROP group. Anaesthesia was maintained with a combination of remimazolam (0.2 to 2 mg kg -1  h -1 ) and remifentanil (plasma concentration: 2.5 to 4 ng ml -1 ). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the TIVA success rate. The predefined noninferiority margin considered an absolute difference of 6% in the primary outcome between the groups. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, and adverse events. RESULTS: All patients completed the trial. The success rates of TIVA with remimazolam and propofol were 100 and 98.6%, respectively. The incidence of hypotension during anaesthesia was lower in the RMZ group (26%) than in the PROP group (46.6%) ( P  = 0.016). The median [IQR] total consumption of ephedrine during anaesthesia was higher in the PROP group 10 [0 to 12.5] mg than in the RMZ group 0 [0 to 10] mg ( P  = 0.0002). The incidence of injection pain was significantly higher in the PROP group (76.7%) than in the RMZ group (0; P  < 0.001). No significant differences in the controllability of the anaesthesia depth, anaesthesia and surgery characteristics, or vital signs were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Remimazolam demonstrated noninferior efficacy to propofol combined with remifentanil and cisatracurium for TIVA in patients undergoing urological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2100050923. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100050923, Principal investigator: Xuehai Guan, Date of registration: 8 November 2021, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=133466 ).

The need to monitor emerging issues in etomidate usage: the misuse or abuse potential.

Since 2011, the misuse or abuse of etomidate has gradually increased when propofol was designated a controlled drug under the Narcotics Control Act in Korea. Accordingly, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety announced that etomidate would be under the 'Regulation on the designation of drugs that may cause concerns of misuse or abuse' rule in June 2020, which is less stringent than the Narcotics Control Act. Therefore, this review investigates potential misuse or abuse cases of etomidate to consider strengthening its management. A literature search was conducted to compare etomidate with other sedatives in their efficacy and side effects, as well as identify the adverse health outcomes, abuse cases, and analytical methods of etomidate. Etomidate has an equal or higher sedative efficacy and lower risk of adverse cardiopulmonary events than propofol. However, major adverse effects of etomidate include adrenocortical suppression and unproven associated deaths, as well as myoclonus requiring pre-treatment. Although the issue of abuse and misuse of etomidate is emerging in recent years, there are few academic reports on these issues and analytical methods in the forensic field. In order to effectively manage the misuse or abuse of etomidate, it is necessary to continuously monitor related cases with great interest and to be more intensively studied on its abuse potential.

A randomized controlled trial of propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia and sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia on early postoperative fatigue in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: Even after uncomplicated surgery, postoperative fatigue prevalence has been reported to be 30-80% for various surgeries. We evaluated postoperative fatigue according to anesthetic technique in patients who underwent colorectal surgery. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients who underwent colorectal surgery were randomly assigned to either propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia (propofol-remifentanil group, n = 65) or sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia (sevoflurane-fentanyl group, n = 65). The primary outcome was the prevalence of postoperative fatigue, as defined by the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (total score ≥ 16), at 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were early postoperative complications during hospitalization and laboratory examination. RESULTS: The final analyses included 127 patients. The prevalence of postoperative fatigue on the 1st postoperative day was lower in the propofol-remifentanil group than the sevoflurane-fentanyl group: 56.3% (36/64) in the propofol-remifentanil group and 73.0% (46/63) in the sevoflurane-fentanyl group (relative risk [RR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.00; P = 0.048). However, there was no difference between the two groups in postoperative fatigue at postoperative day 3. Other postoperative outcomes including the severity of pain and the incidence of nausea/vomiting were not different between the two groups, but postoperative atelectasis on chest X-ray was higher in the sevoflurane-fentanyl group (2/64 [3.1%] vs. 9/63 [14.3%], P = 0.025). C-reactive protein change from preoperative to postoperative day 1 and 5 was significantly lower in the propofol-remifentanil group (P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Propofol-remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia was associated with reduced postoperative fatigue at the 1st postoperative day compared with sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia. Clinical trial The Korean Clinical Research Registry (study identifier: KCT0006917, principal investigator's name: MiHye Park, date of registration: January 12, 2022).

Comparison of ciprofol-alfentanil and propofol-alfentanil sedation during bidirectional endoscopy: A prospective, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although propofol is widely used for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation, cardiopulmonary adverse events remain common. Ciprofol is a new intravenous anaesthetic agent demonstrating respiratory and hemodynamic stability. AIMS: This study aimed to clarify the benefits of ciprofol combined with alfentanil in bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by colonoscopy) to reduce adverse events and improve post-endoscopic recovery. METHODS: A total of 185 patients scheduled to undergo bidirectional endoscopy were randomly divided into two groups: ciprofol combined with alfentanil or propofol combined with alfentanil. All patients received 7 µg/kg alfentanil intravenously before the study drugs were administered. The propofol group received a bolus of 1.2 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) propofol intravenously, whereas the ciprofol group received a bolus of 0.3 mg/kg (0.12 ml/kg) ciprofol intravenously. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with cardiopulmonary adverse events (i.e., any one of the airway obstruction, apnoea, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia or arrhythmias). RESULTS: Compared with propofol, ciprofol reduced cardiopulmonary adverse events by 43.51 % (34.4% vs. 60.9 %, P <0.001), mitigated respiratory adverse events by 54.74 % (17.2% vs. 38.0 %, P = 0.002) overall and by 59.05 % (12.9% vs. 31.5 %, P = 0.002) during the induction period. CONCLUSIONS: Ciprofol can significantly decrease respiratory depression events and provides a better sedative efficacy than propofol with higher recovery quality and satisfaction.

Comparison of Volatile Anesthetics Versus Propofol on Postoperative Cognitive Function After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on neurocognitive function after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials comparing volatile anesthetics and propofol in cardiac surgery were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: The standardized mean difference and risk ratio were calculated to estimate pooled effect sizes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the postoperative neurocognitive function score, and the secondary outcome was the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery. The analysis did not show significant differences in postoperative neurocognitive function scores (standardized mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.81-0.69; p = 0.879). The incidences of delirium (risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.50) between the volatile anesthetics and propofol groups were not significant (p = 0.533). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike noncardiac surgery, there are no differences between volatile anesthetics and propofol regarding postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction after cardiac surgery.

Comparison of the Efficacy of HSK3486 and Propofol for Induction of General Anesthesia in Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled, Phase 3 Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is an intravenous anesthetic associated with hypotension, respiratory depression, and injection-site pain. HSK3486 injectable emulsion (ciprofol) is a 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative with fast onset and quick, stable recovery. Previous studies support HSK3486 as an effective, safe anesthetic with substantially less injection-site pain than propofol. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful general anesthesia induction. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-five participants were enrolled in HSK3486-304, a multicenter, randomized (2:1), double-blind, propofol-controlled, phase 3 study evaluating HSK3486 for general anesthesia induction in adults undergoing elective surgery with tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was successful anesthesia induction, defined as 1 or less on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of participants with injection-site pain on the Numerical Rating Scale of 1 or greater and a composite endpoint, including the proportion of participants successfully induced while maintaining the desired anesthetic depth and without substantial cardiac and respiratory events. Safety endpoints included adverse events, abnormal vital signs, and injection-site pain. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-one participants (HSK3486, n = 168; propofol, n = 83) were included in the analyses. General anesthesia was successfully induced in 97.0% versus 97.6% of participants with HSK3486 and propofol, respectively. The difference in success rate was -0.57% (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.2%); the noninferiority boundary of -8% was not crossed. Thirty participants (18.0%) had injection-site pain with HSK3486 versus 64 (77.1%) with propofol (P < 0.0001). Eighty-one participants (48.2%) with HSK3486 versus 42 (50.6%) with propofol (P = 0.8780) satisfied the composite endpoint. When injection-site pain was excluded, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events related to study drug was 17.9% for HSK3486 and 14.5% for propofol. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary objective and endpoint, demonstrating noninferiority of HSK3486 compared with propofol in successful anesthetic induction. Substantially less injection-site pain was associated with HSK3486 than with propofol.